Would anybody complain if Putin launched air strikes against the Saudi regime?
From August this year:
Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.
Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”
There's definitely a business opportunity out there for someone to come up with DIY laptops, much like the way you can purchase parts from anybody to create your own desktop PC.
The truth is, there probably is a budget for this.
"At the Olympic Garden Topless Cabaret, Samantha says she lap danced with one of the terrorists. The Terrorists who hijacked a plane and crashed it are said to have stayed and played in Las Vegas."
...
"Some big-man terrorist, huh?" Samantha said this week as she took a breather from the two-dozen lap dances she bestows daily upon the lonely at the Olympic Garden Topless Cabaret. "He spent about $20 for a quick dance and didn't tip more."
It seems odd because Russia always gets demonized in the media. It's always the same: mafia, corruption, hackers... I can't remember the last time a positive story was published in the English speaking press.
The Thai government have just dissolved parliament and called new elections due to protests. Can you imagine that happening in many so-called "democratic" Western states? You can't even get a crack-smoking mayor to resign these days!
> And to my Cold War-shaped mind, it is impossible to think of him as anything other than a whistleblower that this country badly, badly needed.
Imagine this was 1980 and the issue at hand was apartheid.
Jelly-fish CEOs print an open letter in newspapers, asking governments to improve race relations because unhappy black folk don't want to buy their products.
Not once is Nelson Mandela mentioned in the letter, so out of the public eye, his years in prison continue.
They may not all care what happens to Snowden, but I think it's unfair to say they're merely showing off. I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle. They have little to gain by issuing such a statement, except the goodwill of people like us, but since they're all participating, such goodwill is evenly distributed and no one of them derives an advantage from it. Whereas they all depend on good relations with various bits of the federal government, which they risk offending with this statement.
They have a lot to gain. Many analysts are saying that surveillance, or the perception of complicity with it, is going to lose international customers and have other negative effects on business partnerships.
I agree that for the most part, geeks at these companies are as opposed to surveillance as people outside - probably even more so. However, usually, it's business impact that turns private opinion into official corporate policy.
These companies want the conversation to be about surveillance, not Snowden. Had Snowden been mentioned in the letter, it would have set off a distracting debate. They probably appreciate what he did, but publicly thanking Snowden isn't going to help them achieve their goals.
Snowden is also not the only whistleblower. To some extent, the more-limited actions by Binney, Wiebe, and Drake were even more amazing because they were without precedent (at NSA); Snowden went far beyond them, but had their example in mind.
Snowden didn't do this for publicity or to be grand-standed, he did it because he believed it was right. I think he would agree that he is not the issue people should be discussing. Instead, it should be how to fix the problems he brought to light.
I think his point was that they're all doing it for selfish reasons, not for some "principles". The principles are the public agenda, but they're really doing it because they're starting to lose business overseas - fast. So now they've taken on this "principled" crusade against the government.
I don't really mind it as long as it really works, and it's the outcome I wanted to see anyway, but I think it should be seen for what it really is. If this was really about principles, they would've done something about it years ago, not after they see their financials or relationships overseas drop because of it.
> I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle.
I wouldn't say that. With news spreading about the NSA having access to your Google data, including your Gmail, people start to worry, and more importantly, they start to look towards alternatives. Google is getting a pretty bad reputation these days when it comes to user privacy, and this isn't helping their cause. This obviously affects their bottom line, and so they're looking for change.
> I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle.
These are the same companies that stand shoulder to shoulder with the same US government when it comes to putting immense pressure on foreign governments to give up their civil rights protections when it comes to privacy.
I can only guess as to their motives, but "high principle" definitely isn't one of them.
I wasn't aware that Twitter was working with the US Government to put immense pressure on foreign governments to give up their civil rights protections on privacy.
People won’t use technology they don’t trust. Governments have put this trust at risk, and governments need to help restore it.”
—Brad Smith, General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft
That makes it pretty clear to me why this campaign is being orchestrated by the companies involved.
I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle.
NOt that i disagree, but I do think if other companies (eg, apple, intel) signed off on this it would remove the stigma of self-dealing. If the "tech industry" was more broadly represented (and included say, Stanford & MIT) again this would be a much more powerful statement. But the reality, is that SV lives off of the governmnet in many indirect ways (nasa, defense, NSF grants, etc) and while they may be principled...well, I sure you get the idea. They're not that principled.
Yes, thats ~weird how they are two sets and apple omits contributing a 'voice' in support. I stand corrected on the point cetainly, wrt the letter at the end.
Edward Snowden isn't mentioned, no, but it's largely due to him that the debate and recent revelations have been so heavily discussed by so many.
We'd known about strange telecommunication interception by governments for years[1] but Snowden's disclosures and the following saga brought it to the attention of the world by providing a theatrical backdrop for the media to start using. Now it's something that normal people know about, not just techies.
Regulating government surveillance is the issue these companies are best positioned to support. If they'd explicitly mentioned Snowden, the discussion could quickly be derailed.
From August this year:
Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.
Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilan...